• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    What the fuck is this shit? Motherfucker, I lived through these elections, and this is some boomer revisionist bull shit.

    Al Gore lost because he couldn’t differentiate himself from god-damned George W Bush. He was too centrist to encourage the left base to show up for him.

    Kerry lost because he couldn’t articulate his better vision for America, and was too centrist to encourage the left base to show up for him.

    Hillary lost because she didn’t even try to reach out to the left base. She was too centrist to beat Donald Fucking Trump.

    Three ostensibly intelligent leaders who lost their elections to fucking morons because they thought that they didn’t need to try very hard to reach out to progressive voters.

    Any one of them would have been a better President than what we got, but the fact that they all lost means they did something wrong. It isn’t the fault of the voters demanding better, it’s the fault of the party failing to meet the demand.

    • GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think this election is a little different in that we have a known threat that is significantly worse than the alternative. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Trump is a threat to democracy and to anyone that doesn’t want to live under religious law as interpreted by the Republicans.

      The other candidate is harm reduction presidentially personified. That is the best choice we actually have, and the consequences for disincentivizing left leaning or undecided voters is much worse than Bush, and that’s saying something.

      Vote against Christ flavored dictatorship, and encourage others to do the same. And not some impossible 3rd party bullshit.

      • cyr0catdrag0nz@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If either third party gets even 5% this election, they qualify for federal funding and could have a greater influence in the future. Third party votes are ESSENTIAL when the establishment wins any other way.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          If they couldn’t get 5% in 2016, they aren’t getting 5%.

          Note also that Perot got >5% in 1996, but that did nothing for third party politics. The Reform party doesn’t even have name recognition.

          You want third parties to be viable? They need to start local and build a base from the ground up. They need to start having significant presence in state politics and legislatures, and we need to see them have a modest bloc of senators and representatives in Congress. Even if a third party did win the presidency, they’d be a complete lame duck with no Congressional support.

          You should be asking yourself why third parties aren’t doing this, and instead wasting money on presidential elections and conventions. The sad truth is that we don’t have a third party because we have no serious third party contenders. None of them want to play the long game to actually win. They’d rather just grift donations.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well ranted, and I don’t disagree but it’s simply the case that voters not showing up gave us the shitshow we now have. It would have been very different, and you can blame the candidates but the fact is none of them are Jesus or Batman or whothefuckever is going to be all things to everyone.

      And, at this point, after 2016, i do not give a single fuck about it. Get to the polls vote Biden and bitch after we’ve saved this country. Everyone gets a full three-and-a-half years to promote whatever their answer is, and if they don’t get it done by then, or have any other useful purpose, time to shut up and get to saving us from Idiot Handmaid’s Dream Reich.

      This tweet or whatever - It’s not an academic treatise. It’s making the point that we can’t sit back again and let cheating fascist billionaire sycophants run away with it again. LIKE WE DID. Didn’t like Al Gore? Don’t care. Kerry too “stiff” for you? Shut the fuck up, we’re fighting goddamned war criminals. Hilary too - whatever - for you? Well no shit, me too but i’m voting for her anyway.

      Be precious later. WE DO NOT HAVE TIME RIGHT NOW.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Right, and you and I are in complete agreement. I agree with the urgency and the overall goal. The only thing I don’t like about this tweet is that it blames the voters. It’s like the people who blame consumers for shopping at Walmart, driving small local businesses into bankruptcy. Or, you could go back to the classic fable of the scorpion and the frog.

        People need to be motivated to vote. For me, voting against Trump is reason enough to show up. For other people, that isn’t enough. And if you lived through Trump’s presidency, and that wasn’t enough to motivate you to show up to vote, this tweet isn’t going to be any more persuasive.

        The problem is not that the voters suck. The problem is that most people cannot see the world through the eyes of another person. Most people, the vast majority, are not dialed into politics. Most people are annoyed at politics. They don’t see a correlation between the people in charge and their personal quality of life.

        Are they wrong? Ignorant? Out of touch? Apathetic? Maybe all of the above. But that’s who they are. You have to meet voters where they are. And if the voters aren’t showing up for you, then that isn’t their fault, it’s yours. The leaders must lead, or they aren’t worth voting for.

        I desperately want Biden to win. I do not want to live in Trump’s America again. But if we have another 4 years of Trump, it’s because Biden and the Democrats are bad at their jobs. If you blame the voters, you may as well blame the tides for rising or the wind for blowing.

        I voted for Nader, but only because Gore won my home state and I was still naive enough to think the DNC would get the message. I voted for Kerry and Hillary, but I didn’t expect either of them to win.

        • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The problem is not that the voters suck. The problem is that most people cannot see the world through the eyes of another person. . . . Are they wrong? Ignorant? Out of touch? Apathetic? Maybe all of the above. But that’s who they are.

          Mmmmi dunno that sounds helluva lot like ‘voters suck’.

          I mean the DNC is shit at almost everything (most importantly social media and messaging). But, it’d be so great if we didn’t have to hand-feed every single goddamned person who’s choices are to be helped or be hurt by their own vote.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Voters suck. Voters always suck. That’s part of the game. It’s like complaining about how high the basketball hoop is.

            • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              So, voters suck but - we didn’t fool them enough? Or- didn’t, what, speak to them with a candidate of a different demographic makeup? Voters not sucking isn’t a fair request?

              • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                There are things that should be, and there are things that are. You can try to make the things that should be, but you must start with the things that are.

                We can make voters better with education. We can encourage engagement, and oppose disenfranchisement, and pass legislation to promote participation, but none of that will change the fact that right now the voters suck. It is reasonable to work towards change, but it is unreasonable to expect them to change immediately and without effort. And while they suck, candidates and parties must work with the voters that are, instead of complaining about the voters that should be.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Al Gore

      too centrist

      I am fascinated to wonder who is upvoting this.

      I mean, it’s true that the left base didn’t completely show up for him. Enough of them showed up that he won the popular vote and the electoral college, but if the vigorous activist left that was focused on WTO and GATT and other non electoral issues had been on the ground in the same way that Roger Stone’s machine was, they might have been able to stop Bush from stealing the election, and we might have had action on climate change back before it was too late, no global war on terror affecting hundreds of thousands of lives, no ISIS, no 2008 financial crash, and we might not have had all the failures to take US intelligence’s warnings seriously, that led to 9/11. Plus God knows what else actual forward progress.

      Reframing “the US news media is so corrupted by propaganda that the average viewer can’t determine who is better between Gore and Bush, by a large enough margin to overcome a pretty blatant coup” as being all Gore’s fault somehow, is the most Lemmy-fake-leftist thing I’ve seen today, and I’ve seen someone praise the USSR’s justice system and someone else say that Biden shut down Trump’s insulin price cap.

      “Too centrist”

      Get the fuck out of here

      You’re right about Hillary though, that part is true

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Man, I lived through it. Don’t piss on my leg and call it rain. I followed Gore’s campaign. I watched his debates. The man had splinters in his ass from riding fences. He picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate to prove how centrist he was.

        Compared to modern Democrats, he’s basically a communist, but 2000 was a heady time for progressives. We thought Bill Clinton was just the beginning, a transitional precursor to a new era of balanced budgets and human rights for all. But it was not to be.

  • RatzChatsubo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I miss when Lemmy was a socialist platform. It’s full of “vote blue no matter who” people now

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean, voting blue no matter who is still in my best interest.

      I hate it and it sucks, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        This enables Democrats to do anything they want, like genocide.

        We can’t force Biden to stop because he believes you will vote blue no matter who.

        It is 100% your fault that the protests and uncommitted vote have limited to no effect.

        • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Hey russian troll monkeys, get your heads out of your asses for four months!! That’s it!! Then you can jam ‘em right back up there. Promise.

          Fucking sick of you GeNoSiDe JoE bullshit fuckheads. God fucking dammit you want trump so goddamned bad. Idiots! And claiming to be left! The stupidest possible take is the one you won’t shut up about. Almost like . . like you know it’s only going to divide people and suppress turnout. Fuck you.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I want the genocide to end and the only way for Biden to win is if he stops doing genocide.

            Why doesn’t Biden want to win?

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          In a two party first past the post system, not voting (or throwing away your vote on a candidate who will not win) benefits the candidate you least want because it effectively gives half your vote to each side

          In the general elections, voting blue no matter who is harm reduction, the time for activism was back in the primaries

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Okay? The point I’m making, which you have totally ignored, is that votes are the only leverage that we have. By throwing my vote away the Democrats can’t have it, and if enough people do that they lose. Supposedly they want to win, so they need to convince me to note vote for Aaron Bushnell this November. By deciding to enslave yourself to the Democrats and slavishly give them your support no matter what they have no reason to not get even worse. By next year they’ll have moved even farther to the right and it will be your fault because you refused to use the only leverage you have to move them to the left.

            Every election cycle the Democrats just become the Republicans from the last election cycle. Biden is doing genocide, violating international law by limiting asylum seekers, and marching us towards WW3. How much worse will they get if they aren’t stopped?

                • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  There’s primaries for federal elections every 2 years in the US, if you want to change the makeup of the party, vote for different candidates in them

            • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              and if enough people do that they lose

              and then things get even worse for everyone, including Palestinians

                • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  And not voting for a major party will fix that how?

                  Even if a significant portion of the population goes third party (and assuming they all agree on the same party), splitting the vote has only ever helped the opposition.

                  And if Democrats are just Republicans from the last election cycle, which is an absolutely unhinged notion but I’ll humor you anyway, voting for Democrats is still in my best interest since Republicans are even further right

                  You’ve legitimately lost your mind in a purity test if you can’t see that.

            • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Don’t forget that he’s also made more progress on building the southern border wall and killing the asylum process than trump did in his 4 years. But he wears a blue tie (Good Guys) and that’s all that really matters.

  • Heavybell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Do people in the US actually refrain from voting because their candidate is “boring”?

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes. Elections in the US aren’t really about convincing people to vote for you, it’s about convincing the people that already like you to actually vote.

      The number of undecided voters or those that actually vote both parties is basically irrelevant. It’s all about getting as many people that support you to actually vote.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Heaven forbid we try running charismatic candidates like Obama and Bill…

    Like, it’s insane to me that everyone seems to be aware of what wins elections, but the people running the Dem party just keep insisting we need to shut up and vote for someone very few people actually want.

    Like, we can’t do this without the voters, they’re the irreplaceable part.

    We can get different people to run the party, or just coalesce around another.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Democrats need to fall in love. Republicans just need to fall in line.

      It’s like you read the meme and went yep, totally their fault. I’m ok with my life gets shittier until I fall in love with a politician. It’s not my fault. I am owed this.

      Is there a term for the political version of an incel?

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes. It’s called a political agitator.

        This user canvases lemmy threads with anti Biden and anti Dem strawman arguments completely out of context of the thread. Every thread calling out Republicans for bullshit, this user is there never acknowledging how terrible the GOP is, and going straight into anti dem whataboutism.

        Just look at the sheer number of comments this user posts daily. And search the mod logs for deleted comments on this user.

        If they’re not being paid to disenfranchise progressive voters into abstaining from this election, they should look for a sponsor because they’re working for free.

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Those one-liners don’t come close to describing the reason voters rejected those candidates.

    Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz backstabbing Bernie Sanders had to be a huge part of why people hated her.

    • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Accuracy is not the goal, smug indignation is. You never have to examine your beliefs if you just blame someone else for the loss.

    • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      She won the most votes so not sure how much of a difference that actually made. The problem is our dog shit electoral system.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’m not so sure the knee-jerk “most-votes” vs. “electoral system” is the problem.

        One reason we produce so much food in The USA is that system, that gives heightened weight to agrarian areas that would be underrepresented in a straight democracy. We’ve seen many countries experience shortages because they’ve not properly understood the needs of the farmer, but not America.

        Personally, I’d say the bigger problem is two PRIVATE ENTITIES (the Democrat and Republican parties) OWN all the political positions in our nation. That institutional bribery is legal (lobbying). That there is no incentive (other than goodwill) for those in power to change anything.

        But you go ahead and believe a popular vote would fix things.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well “those voters” made the country and the world much, much worse than it could have been. So fuck them. Thanks a lot “those voters”. Shitheads.

      • gst0ck@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I understand the sentiment but it’s a little more nuanced than that. I was one of “those voters” because fuck Hillary. However, I also live in a state that her win was guaranteed and therefore I could toss a vote to Gary Johnson and not worry. We definitely need ranked choice voting.

        • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          So you’re happy trump won. Okay, i mean, fair enough. Lots of dudes really hated hillary. I know more than a couple. But I’m in a shithole state, so. It’s more . . . pungent.

          • gst0ck@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Hillary won my state and that’s my whole point. My vote for a 3rd party was a safe vote because Hillary was going to win. I’m not sure if you understand our system and how the electoral college works.

            • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              No, no fair enough. Living in a state where dipshit racists don’t openly cheat and win every time just seems like a magical dream.

  • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Al gore got fucked and he should have been president

    The same way Bernie got fucked by the DNC and would have won against trump if he had been the nominee

    Hillary Clinton is at best centre right and was an absolutely horseshit choice, her only redeeming feature was she wasnt trump

    Maybe democrats should actually be progressive and not all be owned by corporations and then people would go for them

  • jimrob4@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ok, well, put out more likable candidates that get votes then. Stop expecting people to vote for a candidate just because they “aren’t the other guy.” You want people to vote for your candidate? Stop cherry-picking the next anointed one and saying “here they are, vote for them!”

    Goddamn. And Democrats wonder why people think they (we, since I’m registered as one) are so out-of-touch and condescending.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Democrats should try changing their strategy since it’s obviously not working.

    • curiousaur@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Bernie would still win easily, but the Democrats would litterally watch the word burn before nominating a progressive.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think it is working. I think the Democratic National Committee is happy with what they’ve accomplished. We can see their values from how their candidates have voted on major issues. Probably you and many of us think that their values suck, but that’s a different issue.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s “working” in that they are keeping the status quo going to the delight of their rich donors. Democrats would rather lose to fascists than give in to progressive policies.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Don’t forget Reagan. Jimmy Carter, one of our best presidents and true nice guy, the only nuclear scientist, someone who truly wanted life to be better for all Americans, spent the rest of his life helping people ……. Wasn’t “likable”, but Reagan was. Maybe y’all better think about that when you want your candidate to be likable, to schmooze, to tell you what you want to hear, or to be a “Great Communicator”

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Paying the Iranians to keep the hostages until the election really should have been the tip-off that these were bad people. Instead, the Dems spent forty years trying to copy them. DNC consultants are garbage.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Carter was more than a good guy, he tried to do good things, for good motivations, he tried to conscientiously fulfill his role for his constituents. We would all be much better off if we had followed President Carter four more years. But he wasn’t photogenic, wasn’t a great talker

        Reagan was nicknamed “the Great Communicator” because he was photogenic and great at talking, influencing, redirecting. He made us want to follow him. We all know how that turned out.

        It’s a mismatch of expectations: why do elect based on ability to talk, but then complain about the initiatives and actions? Are we getting stuck with exactly what we deserve? We’re doing it again: Trump is a talker who riles people up, gets them agitated to follow him regardless of the disaster they’re following him into. In 2016, the biggest complaint of Clinton was she was boring. I didn’t like her either but she would have been effective, she would have started initiatives all us Lemmings would whole-heartedly agree with. She would have made the country, even the world, a better place. So why do we vote on personality and talk if we want specific action and direction

    • chilicheeselies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      She did a pretty good job sabotaging herself by cleaving the party in two and then expecting everypne to just forget about the viturol thrown at the left the entire time

      • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The entitlement of “it’s her turn” after everything she has done just gave it all a stink. Honestly her campaign did more damage than the Republican one (MUH EMAILS)

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Were they perfectly fair to him? No, they said mean things about him and gave Clinton some debate questions.

      Did they sabotage him? Absolutely not. This narrative is pretty equivalent to the stupid baseless “they stole the election from trump!”

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s leaked DNC emails of the Democrats conspiring against Bernie… This isn’t a conspiracy it’s a straight fact.

        • odelik@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I mean, technically, that’s a conspiracy. It’s just not a conspiracy “theory” like the faked moon landing, Area 51 &aliens, etc etc. It’s just the regular, boring, type of conspiracy. And it was perfectly legal,very legal, the legalest, and legalsideboob (thanks autocomplete for this one. )

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The worst thing to come out of the emails is that they gave Clinton some debate questions beforehand and that they called him some nasty names. It did not uncover any conspiracy against him. This is the same shit I hear from trump supporters who claim they know evidence came out that it was rigged.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Amazing, from your link

              The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders.

              • Goferking0@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Still, I think Democrats made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. I even think Clinton’s campaign made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. Coronation isn’t a good look for anyone, and voters don’t like the feeling that someone is trying to make their choice for them. My guess is Clinton would’ve still won in a larger field, but the win would have felt more earned, more legitimate. And if she lost — if, unlike Sanders, Biden had decided the American people had not yet heard enough about the damn emails, and had run hard on them, and had taken Clinton down — Democrats might have been saved a debacle.

                The reason it’s unwise for the party to try to decide as firmly and as early as Democrats did in 2016 is the party doesn’t have very good information that far before a general election. Candidates who look strong prove weak. Voters who seem satisfied prove restive. Competitive primaries surface unexpected information. If we’ve learned nothing else, it’s that political elites shouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume they can predict future elections.

                The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders. But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible. And the party is still managing the resentment that engendered in voters. “Once somebody doesn’t trust you,” sighs Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic chair, “it’s very hard to get that trust back.”

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Also from the link:

                  The irony is that Sanders was a prime beneficiary of this bias, not a victim of it.

                  The original claim is that sanders got screwed by the DNC and Clinton conspiring against him, something the emails proved. The article here says he benefited from her and the DNC actions, the exact opposite of being screwed by her and the DNC.

                  If we are arguing that they’re problems with the nominating process and how the DNC runs things, what this article is actually addressing, then yes im 100% on board. We can start by getting rid of super delegates and implement something like star voting.

                  But to read that article and actually see it is as confirming the belief that sanders got screwed by Clinton and the DNC, is just mind boggling to me.

                  Literally, multiple times, the source explicitly contradicts the point…and are still you are trying to maintain that it supports your point?

          • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            More the feeding Hillary debate questions part. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, definite tip of iceberg situation.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              So, other than the thing I pointed out, you have no evidence of anything.

              • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Its really telling how you tried to ignore or misconstrue the point. You know fucking well you’re full of shit yet here we are.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I didn’t ignore the point. You just reiterated the facts as I did, but pretended that they proved things that they do not. You probably think I know I’m full of shit, because you know you are and are projecting.

      • BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Did they sabotage him?

        I don’t know, mate. You can say that all the rules and such were followed, but just like any rigged system, playing by the rules doesn’t mean that things are appropriate. The idea of superdelegates is fucked up. The way we let certain states ‘spoil’ the results and create inertia by voting at different times is fucked up. First past the post voting is fucked up.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          You remove all the super delegates, she still crushes him. I don’t like them, but pointing to them as a reason he lost makes zero sense.

          And one of the early states to vote is NH and he did amazing there, which is where the whole “he had a chance” came from. If anything, the inertia thing you point to helped him.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Bush Vs. Gore was a supreme court decision. I get the point here but at some point if we don’t get a better voting system we’re playing with fire. The longer it takes democrats to realize we need ranked choice and proportional voting, the more they risk fascism running rampant.

  • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Hey you stupid shit the radical right has FULL CONTROL OF ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA. That:s because liberals gave it to them. How bout blame them for creating a nation of Nazis?

  • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Al Gote not only could not differentiate himself from GWB, he also had a wife who led a censorship campaign against artists.

  • moon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Not saying you shouldn’t do the right thing when the choice is limited, but how about the DNC stops putting its finger on the scale for unpopular establishment candidates?

    It’s clear that the ‘safe’ choice can still lose, so why not go for the person the base actually likes instead of another centrist wet napkin who appeals to no one?

      • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        When will that be?

        We couldn’t primary Biden in 2024 if we wanted to. Even the unaligned votes that should be a symbol of “hey, you’re not pleasing your base” were ignored. In 2028, they’ll surely push K-hole as the safe choice because even if Trump dies, you know they’ll put his head in a jar to run him again and clearly his only natural enemy is bland centre-right politics.

        Biden’s appeal wasn’t that he was charismatic or brilliant or super-competent… it was that he was a reasonably sincere, respectable human, and he’s proceeded to squander that by failing to handle Gaza gracefully.

        Don’t tell me he can’t do anything. Just run the same playbook we subjected Venezuela or Cuba to, and that would get Bibi’s attention.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          You act like this is some big Injustice or surprise. Let me ask you a question. When has any party ever primaried an incumbent candidate of their party. Who were the 2019 republican primary candidates? Are the Democrats doing anything to you. Or are you a victim of your misunderstanding. This isn’t a defense of Democrats mind you. It’s just unusual that they’re always held to different/unrealistic expectations.

          Also I think it’s important to point out. One of the only people to even remotely seriously push to primary Joe Biden was Dean Phillips. You know the Trump appeaser. Who recently called for New York’s Governor to Pardon Trump. Sure sad I didn’t get to vote for that man LOL. The fact is everyone knew there would not be and didn’t necessarily need to be a primary this year. I hope everyone is ready for 28 though. I’m really hoping for some younger blood now that the boomers are dying out. Honestly I’d like to see Ocasio Cortez make an effort. She’s young and might not make it. But she’s got plenty of time to work at it and hone her skills.

          • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s just unusual that they’re always held to different/unrealistic expectations.

            Perhaps they’re victims of their branding/positioning.

            If a Trump, or even a Romney, says “we can wash our hands of a little genocide in the middle east for political gameplay/economic convenience/religious theories”, that’s pretty much within what people expect of them. The GOP has had a vaguely evil air since at least Nixon, if not McCarthy.

            The Democrats, however, try to present themselves as trying to be on the right side of history. While this is no doubt a combination of cynical “this locks in some demographics” and “social justice is still cheaper than actual economic reform”, it means people expect a little higher standards. The bar is unbelievably low here, and he’s still tripping over it.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Okay, so Biden abandons Israel tomorrow. Does the genocide stop? Nope because it was always Congress that authorized and controlled the spending and weapons shipment. Mike Johnson and the Republicans will gleefully fund the genocide in Palestine. And on top of that now we’ve lost all diplomatic influence with israel. They are now all in on the genocide. Worse Biden who’s actually made many overtures trying to bring peace actually working with the system and not viewing things through a childish black and white lens. No longer has any pull to negotiate any peace treaties or ceasefires.

              Whether or not abandoning Israel completely would slow the genocide anytime soon. It would ultimately increase the killing. Many countries in the region. Would readily attack Israel without the United States to defend it. So the genocide would switch from innocent Palestinians to innocent israelis. I’m not sure how that’s a better thing. It’s just exchanging alike for alike.

              You seem to think this is very simple however. And I’d be interested to get your thoughts on this. Please explain and simple thoughts how you feel the Democrats should handle this. And then explain why them following your actions would have the outcome you claim it will.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Boring” “Unlikeable” “Stiff”

    “Can sit down and have a beer with him” “Tells it like it is” “I like him ‘cause he’s not a politician”

    I wouldn’t be too hard on the electorate, although I 100% agree with the problem description and that counter-educating them out of being duped by these framings is important. But they didn’t come up with the framings. There’s a whole ass science of how to resonate with people emotionally and produce behaviors you want, and professionals have been studying it for over a century now to sell toothpaste and beer and deodorant, and it works. It’s actually one of the primary focuses of hard scientific study in our society, much much more so than addressing climate change. And so, when they turned that whole machine in favor of particular candidates and against other candidates, it’s not surprising that it worked on a whole fuck of a lot of people.

    Now let’s start to talk about how “I could NEVER vote for a genocide” and “Here comes the biggest election of our lifetime, just like every other one before that 🙄” fits into that framework…

    • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean, idk if it’s really necessary to educate the voters out of being able to recognize demons wearing human skin.

      Why not just run good candidates?

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        What constitutes a “good” candidate? As someone pragmatically anarchist/communist, pretty sure were gonna have very different concepts.